View Single Post
  #234  
Old 08-06-2017, 01:19 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,763
[Nitpicking and Didaction] Considering examples or counterexamples is a good way to evaluate a bidding plan. But the example hand for partner should be somewhere near the middle of his range (or bottom range when unlimited). For example, to prove that a slam try is justified you might look for a perfect-fitting minimum, not a perfect-fitting maximum.

This increases the chance that your example will be a useful proxy for partner's actual hand. Similarly, to prove via counterexample that a slam bid is too aggressive, look for a good-fitting minimum or a poor-fitting maximum.

Quote:
... you are forcing to slam no matter what partner has. xxx KJx KQx Kxxx for example.
So here you've gone too far! This counterexample is rock-minimum. (I'm in the "Always open with 12 hcp" crowd but I still might pass that aceless 4333 minimum.) And the honors fit poorly. It's harder to construct many 14-point hands with AH or KH which make 6C a bad bet.

Conclusion: I'd have simply jumped to Six Clubs if RHO overcalled in my void. I'd have jumped to Five Spades if our agreed suit was the major. As is, without any void-showing agreement, I still think my best shot may have been to encourage partner to bid NT, to play him for KH when he does rather than QJxx, and to just bid Six. Seven? Fugged aboutit!